ogg dev - Aug 2008 - final changes to mimetypes rfc

On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Ian Malone <ibmalone at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 2008/8/15 Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1 at gmail.com>:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The IETF has a final draft of our RFC at
>> ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/authors/rfc5334.txt (yes, it goes
>> from 3534 to 5334 - funny!).
>>
>> If you have anything in need of change, speak up now.
>>
>> I have one question in particular: Ogg.k.ogg.k: is the kate codec
>> parameter now down to 8 bytes? If so, it's ok, since I've
already made
>> that change.
>>
>
> Just one small question, 10.3: "In particular, .ogg is used for Ogg
> files that contain only a Vorbis bitstream, while .spx is used for Ogg
> files that contain only a Speex bitstream."
>
> Should that be a "Vorbis I" bitstream, or is it intentionally
left open?
Technically it is a Vorbis I bitstream, but I think we should leave
that flexible. Any other opinions?

Cheers,
Silvia.

>> Just one small question, 10.3: "In particular, .ogg is used for
Ogg
>> files that contain only a Vorbis bitstream, while .spx is used for Ogg
>> files that contain only a Speex bitstream."
>>
>> Should that be a "Vorbis I" bitstream, or is it intentionally
left open?
>
> Technically it is a Vorbis I bitstream, but I think we should leave
> that flexible. Any other opinions?
I read the "Vorbis I" definition to be a (physical) stream composed of
a single
(logical) Vorbis stream, so I'd say the wording implies it is Vorbis
I. If it is to
be left open, the wording might need to be changed to remove the implication
(eg, ".ogg is used for Ogg files that do not contain non Vorbis
bitstreams", or,
to avoid the double negative, ".ogg is used for Ogg files that contain only
Vorbis bitstreams", though that last one could be read as directly allowing
several Vorbis streams, rather than hinting).

Actually, since libvorbisfile will happily play a Vorbis stream alonside a non
Vorbis stream, but won't (AFAIK) play the second Vorbis stream within a
stream composed of (Vorbis+Vorbis), the former is probably closer to the
".ogg" idea than (Vorbis+nonVorbis). This would depend on the number
of
other implementations that may be better the other way (I'm not counting any
shipped-on-silicon implementations, since these would likely fail on both in
the first place).

On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 9:03 PM, ogg.k.ogg.k at googlemail.com
<ogg.k.ogg.k at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Just one small question, 10.3: "In particular, .ogg is used
for Ogg
>>> files that contain only a Vorbis bitstream, while .spx is used for
Ogg
>>> files that contain only a Speex bitstream."
>>>
>>> Should that be a "Vorbis I" bitstream, or is it
intentionally left open?
>>
>> Technically it is a Vorbis I bitstream, but I think we should leave
>> that flexible. Any other opinions?
>
> I read the "Vorbis I" definition to be a (physical) stream
composed of a single
> (logical) Vorbis stream, so I'd say the wording implies it is Vorbis
> I.
Actually, thinking back, that was exactly what we implied: a Vorbis I
stream is a Ogg file that contains only a Vorbis bitstream. Ian: is
that good enough for you?

Cheers,
Silvia.

>> Just one small question, 10.3: "In particular, .ogg is used for
Ogg
>> files that contain only a Vorbis bitstream, while .spx is used for Ogg
>> files that contain only a Speex bitstream."
>>
>> Should that be a "Vorbis I" bitstream, or is it intentionally
left open?
Actually, I'm wondering if I wasn't talking rubbish here - Vorbis I
allows
chaining, doesn't it ? So a single Vorbis bitstream, as mentioned above,
would not be equivalent to a Vorbis I stream.